Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 23:33 +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote: Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Carsten Lohrke wrote: the amd64 team is unresponsive on even trivial stabilisation request form the KDE team as well, lately. welp's been away ;) welp does not touch KDE packages... More importantly, I don't think anyone currently active on amd64 does touch KDE packages. Looking at changelogs, kugelfang is active (but not stabling amd64, it seems); wolf31o2 and cryos are away; lanius, absinthe, and jhuebel are no longer on amd64; that leaves malc, who hasn't done anything kde related since 2004, as far as I can see. I suspect the kde team and the amd64 team need to get together to find someone who can test KDE on amd64. Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Carsten Lohrke wrote: the amd64 team is unresponsive on even trivial stabilisation request form the KDE team as well, lately. welp's been away ;) welp does not touch KDE packages... V-Li -- http://www.gentoo.org/ http://www.faulhammer.org/ http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED]: You will get them tomorrow...promised. :) Too many bugs, not enough devs...as always. Well, I've offered my help with the amd64 team three times now. Was ignored two times and the third time an initial discussion lead to nowhere so I guess it's not exactly of getting more devs but wanting them - or not. Hmmm, I don't know how you did it, but I just nagged some people for a day and was in it...and that was just a few weeks ago. V-Li -- http://www.gentoo.org/ http://www.faulhammer.org/ http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Christian Faulhammer wrote: Wulf C. Krueger [EMAIL PROTECTED]: You will get them tomorrow...promised. :) Too many bugs, not enough devs...as always. Well, I've offered my help with the amd64 team three times now. Was ignored two times and the third time an initial discussion lead to nowhere so I guess it's not exactly of getting more devs but wanting them - or not. Hmmm, I don't know how you did it, but I just nagged some people for a day and was in it...and that was just a few weeks ago. V-Li That's because they want you to do the java bugs *g* -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Caleb Tennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 16 May 2007 13:48:35 -0400: I have no problem waiting for 2007.1, if Gnome and KDE don't mind. I don't know what hackery has to take place to do that, but I'm sure someone out there does. What sort of timing are we looking at for 2007.1 anyway? With .0 delayed as it was, is .1 going to be relatively quick, say August, or are we looking at November now? If it's August, there shouldn't be much KDE to upgrade, maybe stabilize 3.5.6. 4.0 is the big one, but that's tentatively timed for Sept. if I'm not mistaken, and if release dates don't slip. If 2007.1 is November, there's a slim chance of getting 4.0 in, but not if it's like 3.5 was (IIRC 3.5.0 and 3.5.1 never stabilized, it was 3.5.2 before the issues were worked out enough to stabilize, which would put bump stable KDE 4.0.x to 2008.0 at the earliest). I doubt anyone wants to wait for a a November expat-2 stabilization, however, so if 2007.1's going to be that long, unless we want to talk about 2007.0-r1 and I doubt anyone's up for that either, the timing just doesn't look like it's going to work for a release/profile timed expat-2 stabilization. It'd be nice, but... So what /does/ the timing look like for 2007.1? -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Duncan написа: Caleb Tennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 16 May 2007 13:48:35 -0400: I have no problem waiting for 2007.1, if Gnome and KDE don't mind. I don't know what hackery has to take place to do that, but I'm sure someone out there does. What sort of timing are we looking at for 2007.1 anyway? With .0 delayed as it was, is .1 going to be relatively quick, say August, or are we looking at November now? If it's August, there shouldn't be much KDE to upgrade, maybe stabilize 3.5.6. 4.0 is the big one, but that's tentatively timed for Sept. if I'm not mistaken, and if release dates don't slip. If 2007.1 is November, there's a slim chance of getting 4.0 in, but not if it's like 3.5 was (IIRC 3.5.0 and 3.5.1 never stabilized, it was 3.5.2 before the issues were worked out enough to stabilize, which would put bump stable KDE 4.0.x to 2008.0 at the earliest). I doubt anyone wants to wait for a a November expat-2 stabilization, however, so if 2007.1's going to be that long, unless we want to talk about 2007.0-r1 and I doubt anyone's up for that either, the timing just doesn't look like it's going to work for a release/profile timed expat-2 stabilization. It'd be nice, but... So what /does/ the timing look like for 2007.1? Hi, Might i sugest making an doc expat-upgrade and posting it in Docs (or some dev's space). This only for those who can't wait and want earlier upgrade. Even can participate in making it, if needed. Rumen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Rumen Yotov wrote: Hi, Might i sugest making an doc expat-upgrade and posting it in Docs (or some dev's space). This only for those who can't wait and want earlier upgrade. Even can participate in making it, if needed. Three easy steps: 1) unmask it 2) revdep-rebuild 3) profit ! Really, out of all the build issues one could have with changing .so names, expat is the easiest I've had to handle. It doesn't break any low level portage utils like openssl did. It's just _very_ long since you'd have to rebuild 90% of your packages on an average desktop box. Miraculously, things like gcc and glibc don't use it. Rémi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 07:57 +, Duncan wrote: Caleb Tennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 16 May 2007 13:48:35 -0400: I have no problem waiting for 2007.1, if Gnome and KDE don't mind. I don't know what hackery has to take place to do that, but I'm sure someone out there does. What sort of timing are we looking at for 2007.1 anyway? With .0 delayed as it was, is .1 going to be relatively quick, say August, or are we looking at November now? We're taking a couple months off. We deserve it. There's no way we're making an August release. If you would have checked http://releng.gentoo.org before asking, you wouldn't have needed to ask. *grin* -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 13:48 -0400, Caleb Tennis wrote: No. It would have been ideal if we would have done it with the release. Now, it means people *will* need to use revdep-rebuild as soon as they install their shiny new system if they use binary packages. People coming from stage3 would be fine, of course. I would have been happy to do that, but honestly Chris, the thought of approaching you and asking you to bump something like that into 2007.0 scared the crap out of me. You seemed way overburdened for the release as it was. I can totally understand this feeling. Releases are stressful. At the same time, I want to make sure that nobody feels afraid to come to us with things like this. Releases are the perfect time to make changes that would otherwise be intrusive, since we can use the profiles to make these sorts of changes, keeping them from affecting users until they're ready. We fully encourage people to come to us with changes like this so we can help ease transitions for our users. After all, new releases are generally just a media refresh, but if we can use them to make things better for our users, we should. I have no problem waiting for 2007.1, if Gnome and KDE don't mind. I don't know what hackery has to take place to do that, but I'm sure someone out there does. It's simple. You mask expat-2.0.0 on all the current profiles, we mark it stable in the snapshot and don't have it masked in the 2007.1 profile. When we release (actually right before), we mark the package stable in the tree. We document the expat upgrade as part of the profile upgrade guide, and we're done. Users using a =2007.0 profile never see the upgrade. New users use the new expat. Users changing to the 2007.1 profile run revdep-rebuild. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Chris Gianelloni wrote: It's simple. You mask expat-2.0.0 on all the current profiles, we mark it stable in the snapshot and don't have it masked in the 2007.1 profile. When we release (actually right before), we mark the package stable in the tree. We document the expat upgrade as part of the profile upgrade guide, and we're done. Users using a =2007.0 profile never see the upgrade. New users use the new expat. Users changing to the 2007.1 profile run revdep-rebuild. +1 Now, how can we do this? Could we start changing the profiles right now? (I guess people on ~arch will need to unmask it to not downgrade). Should this be brought to the next council meeting? Chris, I could write a small paragraph for whatever GWN explaining what stable and unstable users will have to do if you want. Cheers, Rémi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rémi Cardona wrote: Chris Gianelloni wrote: It's simple. You mask expat-2.0.0 on all the current profiles, we mark it stable in the snapshot and don't have it masked in the 2007.1 profile. When we release (actually right before), we mark the package stable in the tree. We document the expat upgrade as part of the profile upgrade guide, and we're done. Users using a =2007.0 profile never see the upgrade. New users use the new expat. Users changing to the 2007.1 profile run revdep-rebuild. Now, how can we do this? Could we start changing the profiles right now? (I guess people on ~arch will need to unmask it to not downgrade). That can be avoided if you make an artifical revbump that won't change anything, just have stable keywords, and you mask that revision specifically. - -- Vlastimil Babka (Caster) Gentoo/Java -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGTKEqtbrAj05h3oQRAsKEAJ9Nwh6jww9Tut9VtXnHIPuLXHUnUQCcCoSQ T/34IkQDJqh6IOGX7rME1fw= =Bssx -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 20:33 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote: Chris Gianelloni wrote: It's simple. You mask expat-2.0.0 on all the current profiles, we mark it stable in the snapshot and don't have it masked in the 2007.1 profile. When we release (actually right before), we mark the package stable in the tree. We document the expat upgrade as part of the profile upgrade guide, and we're done. Users using a =2007.0 profile never see the upgrade. New users use the new expat. Users changing to the 2007.1 profile run revdep-rebuild. +1 Now, how can we do this? Could we start changing the profiles right now? Considering we already have a 2.0.0 ebuild, we do the following: - Mask =2.0.0-r9 (this allows for security bumps, if necessary, number can be adjusted) - Copy 2.0.0 to 2.0.0-r9 - When we make a new 2007.1 profile, don't mask =2.0.0-r9 - Stable 2.0.0-r9 in the 2007.1 snapshot and mark it stable in the tree with the release - ??? - Profit! (I guess people on ~arch will need to unmask it to not downgrade). Well, with what I have said, there's room for version bumps, if required. It also means ~arch people don't have to do anything. There won't be any downgrade and we simply never mark anything below 2.0.0-r9 stable to keep stable users safe. Should this be brought to the next council meeting? Is that really necessary? What can the Council do that we cannot agree upon here as civil adults? I think we can agree to do this ourselves. I can definitely agree to it from a Release Engineering standpoint. It would work quite well and is beneficial to our users. Chris, I could write a small paragraph for whatever GWN explaining what stable and unstable users will have to do if you want. Sure. However, if we did follow my draft plan above, there would be no need. Users running ~arch have probably hit this already by now, so I don't think we would be informing too many people. That being said, it would make a cool article. Even if just to show that, yes, we really do care for our users and think about ways to reduce the impact on their systems. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 20:38 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote: Now, how can we do this? Could we start changing the profiles right now? (I guess people on ~arch will need to unmask it to not downgrade). That can be avoided if you make an artifical revbump that won't change anything, just have stable keywords, and you mask that revision specifically. Exactly. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 17 May 2007 10:59:36 -0700: We're taking a couple months off. We deserve it. There's no way we're making an August release. If you would have checked http://releng.gentoo.org before asking, you wouldn't have needed to ask. Thanks, both for the answer, and the gentle prod. =8^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 05:29:44 PM Christian Faulhammer wrote: Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED]: but the amd64 team is unresponsive on even trivial stabilisation request form the KDE team as well, lately. You will get them tomorrow...promised. :) Too many bugs, not enough devs...as always. Well, I've offered my help with the amd64 team three times now. Was ignored two times and the third time an initial discussion lead to nowhere so I guess it's not exactly of getting more devs but wanting them - or not. Best regards, Wulf pgpDoSZj7PhFR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 20:08 +0200, Rémi Cardona wrote: Duncan wrote: It's probably a bit late now (unless we want to wait yet another few months), but tying this to a profile upgrade might have been a more practical solution. 2007.0, or now 2007.1. Old profiles would stick with the old expat, and new ones would get the new one. People are generally prepared for at least a /bit/ of extra upheaval when they do profile upgrades, and that would have made the PR a bit easier as well, since that's a natural time for it. Sounds good to me. To complement what Mart (leio) said earlier, a good timing for Gnome is either 2.16.3 or 2.18.0/1, the latter not being due for stable in for another few weeks. My opinion: the sooner the better. But having new stages for new installs so that users don't have to find out about revdep-rebuild the minute they finish their install is probably the best way to go. The profile idea looks ideal. No. It would have been ideal if we would have done it with the release. Now, it means people *will* need to use revdep-rebuild as soon as they install their shiny new system if they use binary packages. People coming from stage3 would be fine, of course. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Chris Gianelloni kirjoitti: No. It would have been ideal if we would have done it with the release. Now, it means people *will* need to use revdep-rebuild as soon as they install their shiny new system if they use binary packages. People coming from stage3 would be fine, of course. stage3 has expat too so they need to revdep-rebuild too Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
No. It would have been ideal if we would have done it with the release. Now, it means people *will* need to use revdep-rebuild as soon as they install their shiny new system if they use binary packages. People coming from stage3 would be fine, of course. I would have been happy to do that, but honestly Chris, the thought of approaching you and asking you to bump something like that into 2007.0 scared the crap out of me. You seemed way overburdened for the release as it was. I have no problem waiting for 2007.1, if Gnome and KDE don't mind. I don't know what hackery has to take place to do that, but I'm sure someone out there does. Caleb -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Chris Gianelloni wrote: No. It would have been ideal if we would have done it with the release. Exactly my point. Let's do it for the next release if neither Gnome nor KDE folks can predict our/their next releases. Cheers, Rémi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Carsten Lohrke wrote: the amd64 team is unresponsive on even trivial stabilisation request form the KDE team as well, lately. welp's been away ;) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Steve Long napsal(a): welp's been away ;) Oh well, the dreaded *buntu maintenance eats time, you know... *g* -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
On Tuesday 15 May 2007, Jakub Moc wrote: Mike Frysinger napsal(a): On Tuesday 15 May 2007, Caleb Tennis wrote: * - This version has a new soname, so it will require a revdep-rebuild, which is probably why it hasn't been stabilized as of now. so add a call to preserve_old_lib / preserve_old_lib_notify like should have been in there in the first place ... see latest readline ebuild for an example If you read the bug with loads of duplicates; i'm assuming you mean 128069 since you failed to mention what bug you're actually referring to it's been avoided as well, because it was considered unsafe for the same reason as slotting. ha, i doubt it ... the code snippet i referred to in readline is not even close to being the same thing as SLOTTing if you're referring to the comment you made (which you should have just posted in the e-mail instead of telling people to go find some random bug): Because it's not safe here, stuff can continue to link against the old libexpat ABI. Again, read the backlog before posting yet another comment here. revdep-rebuild will rebuild applications in the proper order which makes this comment irrelevant -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Carsten Lohrke [EMAIL PROTECTED]: but the amd64 team is unresponsive on even trivial stabilisation request form the KDE team as well, lately. You will get them tomorrow...promised. :) Too many bugs, not enough devs...as always. -- http://www.gentoo.org/ http://www.faulhammer.org/ http://www.gnupg.org/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Caleb Tennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 15 May 2007 07:30:17 -0400: I'd like to open a bug soon requesting the stabiliztion of dev-libs/expat-2.0.0*. It's currently assigned to tcltk, but the bug traffic seems to indicate they don't know why they have it. If nobody steps up, objects, and is willing to take over maintenance I will do so. * - This version has a new soname, so it will require a revdep-rebuild, which is probably why it hasn't been stabilized as of now. I don't see it mentioned in the bug (128069 anyway) or in the discussion so far, and while it might be considered obvious, just in case... Wasn't the ~ intro of this what precipitated the whole GLEP 42 (news) thing? I know news came up again recently and due to the lack of a news reading client for portage, further use was put on hold. Has that been resolved? Because if there's a place where a preemptive news function is needed, this is it! Thus, if at all possible, having news working and using it for this should be SERIOUSLY considered. Regardless of whether news is ready or not, however, please make sure it's covered in GWN at LEAST the week prior, and preferably for a couple weeks in a row. (Yes, an upgrade /can/ be that bad.) Also, please make sure it's announced on the forums and on the user list. For those that don't see it after that, well... at least there'll be plenty of places to refer the bug filers to. Alternatively, this is the /one/ case I've come across where I might actually be in favor of putting an IM_SURE_IM_READY_TO_UPGRADE_EXPAT=1 test in the ebuild, dying if not. (No, I didn't /think/ that'd go anywhere, but seriously, if there's a case where it might be warranted, this is it. Not saying that it is.) It's probably a bit late now (unless we want to wait yet another few months), but tying this to a profile upgrade might have been a more practical solution. 2007.0, or now 2007.1. Old profiles would stick with the old expat, and new ones would get the new one. People are generally prepared for at least a /bit/ of extra upheaval when they do profile upgrades, and that would have made the PR a bit easier as well, since that's a natural time for it. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Duncan wrote: It's probably a bit late now (unless we want to wait yet another few months), but tying this to a profile upgrade might have been a more practical solution. 2007.0, or now 2007.1. Old profiles would stick with the old expat, and new ones would get the new one. People are generally prepared for at least a /bit/ of extra upheaval when they do profile upgrades, and that would have made the PR a bit easier as well, since that's a natural time for it. Sounds good to me. To complement what Mart (leio) said earlier, a good timing for Gnome is either 2.16.3 or 2.18.0/1, the latter not being due for stable in for another few weeks. My opinion: the sooner the better. But having new stages for new installs so that users don't have to find out about revdep-rebuild the minute they finish their install is probably the best way to go. The profile idea looks ideal. Rémi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: stabilizing expat 2.0.0
Rémi Cardona schrieb: The profile idea looks ideal. Yup, +1 on that one -Jokey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
